Begging the question and how it relates to views on abortion

[Merlin99]

Let me take these in order
Do you not see an implicit agreement for responsibility on the part of the mother to keep the child up to that point? No
Why is a human being with a brain and a beating heart and all the parts that make it a human including unique DNA essentially just a cyst? because prior to that time it's more or less a parasite, with no more rights than any other parasite.
Science says that something that can't live on its own, doesn't get to.

I think the first question is the core of your argument, but since I don't agree with that part we're unlikely to ever agree.

 

[Pushrod]

It's an ugly old world and it took me awhile to come to grips with my opinion and become comfortable with it. I am against abortion on a personal level - both of my grandchildren were unplanned and I was openly thrilled that abortion wasn't on the table with either of them. Nor was it on the table when I was an unmarried teenage pregnant person. It's just not what we do in my family or part of our value system.

But I also knew that neither I nor either of my kids was going to produce a Future Felon and drain on society. My cousin, on the other hand, has produced two POS that the world would be better off without; now they are reproducing and it's not looking good for any of those children. So... :shrug:

At some point the good of society has to come into play. THAT is why I'm pro-abortion. There are simply some people that the world would be better off without, and we can definitely do without them reproducing exponentially.

Harsh, but true.

Then I imagine you would be okay sterilizing the undesirables? Why even give them the chance to reproduce? Forced abortions for those undesirables who slip through? The needs of the many supersede the needs of the few?

I could see your stance on abortion up to a certain point in time for the pregnancy if the parents/mother so choose, after a point in time, biologically, it should be murder.
I think the line needs to be drawn when the fetus becomes viable, it has reached the level of being an independent life and could survive outside the womb. Destroying it after that, unless under certain circumstances, should be no different then killing an already birthed child.

Its a tough subject that riles the hackles of many, and it should. It is something we should not take lightly and should contemplate deeply.

ETA: Wow, I was late to this party, fifteen pages in! Oh well.

 

[This_person]

Let me take these in order
Do you not see an implicit agreement for responsibility on the part of the mother to keep the child up to that point? No
Why is a human being with a brain and a beating heart and all the parts that make it a human including unique DNA essentially just a cyst? because prior to that time it's more or less a parasite, with no more rights than any other parasite.
Science says that something that can't live on its own, doesn't get to.

I think the first question is the core of your argument, but since I don't agree with that part we're unlikely to ever agree.

When is it that a mother and/or father are actually responsible for the life they generate? On what day does that occur?

If the child inside is a parasite, unable to live on it's own, how is that different from the baby that is one or two days old? Can that infant live on its own? Since we both know it can't, does that mean it's not allowed to either? It has no rights?

So, if I understand you correctly, every plant is not actually alive because it is just a parasite on the earth?

I don't think you understand science the same way I do....

 

[BigBlue]

Explain how it is a legitimate point.

How is it not?

 

[This_person]

How is it not?

I already explained it, but I'll do it again for you:

Your argument is that killing babies and killing criminals via the death penalty are the same thing (death of a person), so people who are for the death penalty should be for abortion, and if you're against abortion you should be against the death penalty, right? If I'm not right, please tell me your point is in bringing the death penalty into a discussion of abortion.

So, assuming I'm right (since why else would you bring the death penalty into a discussion on abortion?) this has a few flaws in logic.

The first is, your point is also that the baby is not a person. If you believe the baby is a person (and therefore an appropriate comparison to the death penalty, since that kills a person), then your argument that the baby is (like Merlin has said a cyst, or others say) just a clump of cells and not a person, YOU are being hypocritical in bringing those apples into the discussion of oranges.

The second is that there is a reason for death with the death penalty. The issue here is not just black and white. A death from self-defense is different than a cold-blooded murder is different from war is different from a car accident. Not all deaths are handled the same legally, because not all deaths are equal in cause. So, for the death to occur in the death penalty, there is a crime that is committed that has been adjudicated in law to warrant death as a reasonable punishment, and a person has been deemed by (normally) a jury of many to be guilty of that crime beyond a reasonable doubt. The vast majority of the time, that jury's decision is validated for quality by yet another legal process to verify the appropriateness of the penalty and conviction of the crime. So, that death is based on being a punishment. Unless you are trying to say that the baby involved in an abortion has been convicted of a crime for which death is a reasonable punishment (and, we know that the vast majority of abortions are for the convenience of the mother, so you'd have to be saying being inconvenient to a mother is a crime for which a reasonable punishment is death), then there is really no comparison, and thus the argument has no legitimacy.

That's my argument. What's yours that it is a legitimate point?

 

[Merlin99]

When is it that a mother and/or father are actually responsible for the life they generate? On what day does that occur?

If the child inside is a parasite, unable to live on it's own, how is that different from the baby that is one or two days old? Can that infant live on its own? Since we both know it can't, does that mean it's not allowed to either? It has no rights?

So, if I understand you correctly, every plant is not actually alive because it is just a parasite on the earth?

I don't think you understand science the same way I do....

When they take responsibility for it
I answered this once but I'll state it again "When it's can be born with a chance of surviving on its own. It may take some extraordinary effort to get it to survive, an incubator, medical intervention" prior to the point that you can get it to thrive, it's a part of the mother just like an appendix.
If you got that last point from what I said, we don't even understand the English language the same way, much less science.

 

[BigBlue]

I already explained it, but I'll do it again for you:

Your argument is that killing babies and killing criminals via the death penalty are the same thing (death of a person), so people who are for the death penalty should be for abortion, and if you're against abortion you should be against the death penalty, right? If I'm not right, please tell me your point is in bringing the death penalty into a discussion of abortion.

So, assuming I'm right

As others have said better than I , you are not .No one is killing babies and that alone is the flaw in your argument but the anti abortionist are always pro killing in every other aspect was my point so yes you and the other "cranky old men " are hypocrite and should stay out of the discussion .

 

[PsyOps]

As others have said better than I , you are not .No one is killing babies and that alone is the flaw in your argument but the anti abortionist are always pro killing in every other aspect was my point so yes you and the other "cranky old men " are hypocrite and should stay out of the discussion .

Some very simple questions for you:

- Do you agree with the science that says at conception that fertilized egg cell has human DNA?

- Do you agree that at any point following conception that the little 'thing' in that womb is a human LIFE (forget calling it a baby; that's just a technicality)?

- If it's not a human life, at what point does it actually become a human life? Please provide your scientific evidence to support this.

- If a woman has an abortion (say mid to late term), and the abortion goes wrong and the 'thing' (we won't call it a baby for your sake) is born alive, and is viable; the intent was for the mother to abort... should she still have the right to destroy that 'thing' (post-abort)?

 

[BigBlue]

Some very simple questions for you:

- Do you agree with the science that says at conception that fertilized egg cell has human DNA?

- Do you agree that at any point following conception that the little 'thing' in that womb is a human LIFE (forget calling it a baby; that's just a technicality)?

- If it's not a human life, at what point does it actually become a human life? Please provide your scientific evidence to support this.

- If a woman has an abortion (say mid to late term), and the abortion goes wrong and the 'thing' (we won't call it a baby for your sake) is born alive, and is viable; the intent was for the mother to abort... should she still have the right to destroy that 'thing' (post-abort)?

That is your problem , as a cranky old man you want everything very simple , but go ahead you are the perfect example of a cranky old man who knows nothing and should stay out of things like this.

 

[Gilligan]

That is your problem , as a cranky old man you want everything very simple , but go ahead you are the perfect example of a cranky old man who knows nothing and should stay out of things like this.

Another remarkably lame "non answer". You go, boy!

 

[Gilligan]

.No one is killing babies .

Then perhaps you would be so kind to explain the number of premature babies, as young as 21 weeks, that have survived, while abortions are legal up to 26 weeks. A real puzzler, eh kid?

 

[BigBlue]

 

[PsyOps]

That is your problem , as a cranky old man you want everything very simple , but go ahead you are the perfect example of a cranky old man who knows nothing and should stay out of things like this.

Very sad.

 

[Gilligan]

Coward.

 

[This_person]

When they take responsibility for it

So, in your view, a parent is never legally responsible for their child unless they take responsibility for it? OK, how do they show that they have? Is creating the life willingly a demonstration that they've taken that responsibility? Or, taking pre-natal vitamins? Certainly, we don't have an "I declare responsibility for my child" form for them to fill out, so there must be some point that a reasonable person would say, "they've taken responsibility for their actions."

I answered this once but I'll state it again "When it's can be born with a chance of surviving on its own. It may take some extraordinary effort to get it to survive, an incubator, medical intervention" prior to the point that you can get it to thrive, it's a part of the mother just like an appendix.

Now, scientifically, what is the basis for the determination that a living, breathing, heart-beating human with its own DNA separate from the mother is similar to an appendix that has the mother's DNA and could never be a self-supporting life form?

If you got that last point from what I said, we don't even understand the English language the same way, much less science.

I got that last point from you saying previously and here that a parasite is not a separate life form, but rather it is merely an integral part of the host life form. A plant cannot survive on its own, it must be nurtured from the earth in which it lives. Pull it out of the earth and lay it down, and it will stop living - even if you water it and give it sunlight. By your description, a plant is not an individual life form because it cannot survive without its host.

 

[This_person]

As others have said better than I , you are not .No one is killing babies and that alone is the flaw in your argument but the anti abortionist are always pro killing in every other aspect was my point so yes you and the other "cranky old men " are hypocrite and should stay out of the discussion .

Well, if science is wrong, and it's not a human baby, then how is it hypocritical to be against killing it but ok with killing things that have taken the actions and made the individual choices to put themselves in position to be killed? If it's not a baby, if it's not a separate human, then nothing is getting killed, right? So, the comparison would not be applicable, because (in your view) there is no one being killed in an abortion.

 

[This_person]

That is your problem , as a cranky old man you want everything very simple , but go ahead you are the perfect example of a cranky old man who knows nothing and should stay out of things like this.

Having to think about this is very difficult for you, isn't it? You have to jump to this kind of answer because you either don't understand the questions, or you DO understand the questions and realize your position is wrong. But, you don't want to be wrong, so you have to go with this kind of answer.

 

[Bird Dog]

As others have said better than I , you are not .No one is killing babies and that alone is the flaw in your argument but the anti abortionist are always pro killing in every other aspect was my point so yes you and the other "cranky old men " are hypocrite and should stay out of the discussion .

You are so wrong on so many topics. You are the hypocrite. You are wrong. You should go back to school.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_termination_of_pregnancy

 

[BigBlue]

Having to think about this is very difficult for you, isn't it? You have to jump to this kind of answer because you either don't understand the questions, or you DO understand the questions and realize your position is wrong. But, you don't want to be wrong, so you have to go with this kind of answer.

Again I must have hit a nerve to get you so upset to attack .You're welcome .

 

[BigBlue]

You are so wrong on so many topics. You are the hypocrite. You are wrong. You should go back to school.]

Oh look , another cranky male super hero .